Jason's 20 Greatest Cameras of all Time -- Hits? Missess ?

check out his just re-published list from 2018

Does Noteworthy always translate to Greatest?

Why not the Epson RD1 instead of the trouble prone Leica M9?

Why not the Konica Hexar RF as the first of the NON Leica M mounts?

Why not my favorite Canon SLRs - the T90 and RT?

The Pentax K1000? Really? Does best selling = Greatness?

Why not the Hasselblad V?

as the usual suspect greatest cameras duke it out among their fans ...

Stephen
 
Click to expand...
The one camera? Nikon FM2-T. Rugged, simple and a pleasure to travel with. Bought it new 25 years ago and still use it.
Great thing about these F-mount bodies is that the lens options are as numerous as the stars in the sky.
 
peterm1 said:
It is obviously hard to limit the number of great cameras to just 10 given this is a wholly arbitrary number. And equally it is obvious that any choice is somewhat subjective and personal.

I do not know that I would necessarily disagree with any on the list although there are some I have very little knowledge of (e.g. the Apple Quick Take on the digital list) but one I camera I can think of that I would be tempted to include is something like the Asahi Pentax (apparently sometimes unofficially designated AP), Asahi Pentax S or K from 1957 / 1958. I think of these as being in some ways similar to the original Kodak of 1888 - a new type of camera for the masses.

They were the first SLR type to capture a large share of the market with an "instant" return mirror which minimized viewfinder block out (and for that matter very quickly also acquired semi-auto lens apertures). These cameras, it can be argued, helped the Japanese camera market take off in popularity amongst ordinary users in the way that, say, the Nikon F did amongst high end users and pros. And it is for that reason I would be inclined to include them: They were breakout products which changed the market for most users by introducing them to a usable SLR camera. And it helped make the Japanese camera industry become the behemoth it now is and has been for 60 years. Oh and in the case of these early Pentax SLRs, they are genuinely beautiful cameras to look at, to handle and to use though the build is a little light by comparison with the Nikon F.

PentaxAPK-1.jpg


_2289022_orig.jpg
Click to expand...
I liked my first one so much, I too wound up with two. I always consider it to be the SLR version of the Barnack Leica. A truly superb camera. One, unfortunately, does not have the original focus screen. I find the original focus screen to be one of the best I have ever used. It made me smile to see the lenses, I have the same on mine.
 
I think eventually you're a die-hard fan of Nikon, Erik;

I always thought that of the Leica you are,

Nikon & Leica are the only two brands for 135 gear that I've used. Similarly applies to Rolleiflex for 120 gear.

Erik van Straten said:
Light weight. Appearance (I have an original black paint one). Smoothness. But as you know I also like the M3 very much! I can use much more different lenses on the M3. But when you put a gun at my head to make a choice I'll take the S2. It is not a rational choice, it is emotional.

Nikon S2/ Nikkor all black 50mm f/1.4/TMY2-400/AdoxMCC110

Erik.
Click to expand...
 
Kind of curious, what was the first camera to use roll film? Surely that should be on the list. I know the Kodak is usually the answer given, but it wasn't really using film as we know it today. Goodwin had the patent for celluloid film, and Ansco bought out Goodwin to get it, and then successfully sued Kodak for infringement. Although Ansco built some Goodwin branded cameras - what cameras were actually made to use celluloid film before Ansco bought the company?

Beyond that, I'd probably skip the Leica I. There already were cameras using 35mm film before the Leica. It incorporates some neat features for the time, but for lasting impact the Leica II should get more credit.

I might also skip the Polaroid.

The Topcon RE Super never seems to get its due respect either. First successful implementation of TTL metering? That is important pretty much across all camera types, SLR, rangefinder, film, digital, etc.
 
tunalegs said:
...
The Topcon RE Super never seems to get its due respect either. First successful implementation of TTL metering? That is important pretty much across all camera types, SLR, rangefinder, film, digital, etc.
Click to expand...

Topcon was the first with full-aperture TTL metering, introduced in 1965. The Minolta SR-T 101 followed Topcon with this feature, in 1966.

- Murray
 
tunalegs said:
...Beyond that, I'd probably skip the Leica I. There already were cameras using 35mm film before the Leica. It incorporates some neat features for the time, but for lasting impact the Leica II should get more credit...
Click to expand...

I'll second the vote for the Leica II, it was the classic in that they'd finally got their act together and everything followed from it. OK, it may not be the greatest but I'm sticking to it being The Classic Leica.

What I'll never decide on is the M equivalent; not the M3 perhaps the M2 but then the M4 improved on it and the M6 gave us CW TTL. It's difficult.

Regards, David
 
Erik van Straten said:
But when you put a gun at my head to make a choice I'll take the S2. It is not a rational choice, it is emotional.

Erik.
Click to expand...

Different studies show that decisions taken based on emotion are far more than decisions taken based on logic (anything between 73% up to 84%). The advertising industry knows that well.

I do almost all my work with my Nikons (F4, F5 F90x). I like them a lot, i have a decent amount of good lenses and they never gave me any problems.
If i had to sell everything and keep only one camera, it will be the Olympus Om2n the one i keep.
 
David Hughes said:
What I'll never decide on is the M equivalent; not the M3 perhaps the M2 but then the M4 improved on it and the M6 gave us CW TTL. It's difficult.
Click to expand...

I agree with David here.

The M3 is great with a 50mm lens, but with a 35mm lens it is clumsy.

The M2 comes close to the perfect M with very good framelines for the 50mm and the 35mm. But the frame counter is always off. You never know how much exposures still can be made.

The MP spoils things by not having those excellent M2 framelines. And that shiny paint.

The M5 is fantastic, but too big, and there is no black paint version.

The M4, maybe. I've never tried one. I am still looking for a black paint version with an 1.1XX.XXX number, (all brass).

The M6 is ... brrr, ugly. That red dot.


Erik.
 
I should have said something about the Leica CL (the proper film version) but I think it is in a class of its own; although from time to time I wonder if the Olympus - 35 SP is in the same class...


I just love the top plate of the CL with just "Leica Wetzlar" and nothing else but why did they have to shove "Leica CL" on to the front?


Regards, David
 
tunalegs said:
The Topcon RE Super never seems to get its due respect either. First successful implementation of TTL metering? That is important pretty much across all camera types, SLR, rangefinder, film, digital, etc.
Click to expand...

I've always been curious about the RE Super / Super D / Super DM. I've never ended up owning one, but they look like really interesting cameras. Kowa Six was another one. Ah too many cameras still yet to try!
 
Erik van Straten said:
I agree with David here.

The M3 is great with a 50mm lens, but with a 35mm lens it is clumsy.

The M2 comes close to the perfect M with very good framelines for the 50mm and the 35mm. But the frame counter is always off. You never know how much exposures still can be made.

The MP spoils things by not having those excellent M2 framelines. And that shiny paint.

The M5 is fantastic, but too big, and there is no black paint version.

The M4, maybe. I've never tried one. I am still looking for a black paint version with an 1.1XX.XXX number, (all brass).

The M6 is ... brrr, ugly. That red dot.


Erik.
Click to expand...

Eric, Yours is maybe the best concise analysis of Leica M. I agree entirely. But the M4 w brass re-wind extended into the 1.2 serial # (1968). Also on the MP... it could have been the perfect M2 replacement ...
 
Heresy warning...

Heresy warning...

I can't help thinking that the original 1950's-ish Zorki ought to be in the list. I see it as an interesting example of where the Leica could have gone, and the same goes for the early FED 2 camera and then there's the f/2.8 Industar lenses...

And how about one of the very basic cameras like the LOMO/Cosmic Symbol with its super 40mm Triplet lens? A great introduction to photography for a lot of youngsters and their dads when the Leica has broken in the middle of a holiday.

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
I should have said something about the Leica CL (the proper film version) but I think it is in a class of its own;...

I just love the top plate of the CL with just "Leica Wetzlar" and nothing else but why did they have to shove "Leica CL" on to the front?

Regards, David
Click to expand...

I agree with you David. The M5/CL model logo placement was the beginning of a downhill slide. Many users over the years have taped over the front logo & worse still the red dot.


IMG_9873 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/156629749@N02/
 
raid said:
What about the M7, Erik? You left it out.
Click to expand...

I've never used one so far! For me, a Leica is primarily an aesthetic and mechanical object, inside and out. It doesn't actually fit electronics, except maybe for a light meter. An M7 is electronically controlled. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does not appeal to me.

Erik.
 
Raid, The M7 has shown known electronics problems. Who knows how long Leica will have components. The M6 TTL apparently can no longer be repaired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom